Talk:ǃKung people

Ju/wasi

If this is the name that the people refer to themselves as, this page should be moved to Ju/wasi people I believe. I would do this myself except the contributor of this information was anonymous and provided no reference to support it ... as I don't know the veracity of this, I leave it to another to second this information or provide some backup support for it's truth before making the move. Regards, Courtland 02:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me as part of the complications of Khoisan languages. I think Ju/wasi people are supposed to speak the Ju/’hoan language rather than the !Kung language. But [1] suggests that some writers think they are the same and others different. I will take it out. --81.131.164.155 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought the Ju/'hoansi are a sub-division of wider !Kung peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.30.115 (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the !Kung people were under the category of San bushmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.49.178 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a typo. Their genuine name is Juǀʼhoansi, according to another article I found which describes them similarily. Juǀʼhoansi. I made some grammar-based and word usage edits to that section, but I haven't done fact checking. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Mythology

Prishiboro does not sound like a real Khoisan word. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Ezeu! The original was bloody tedious, and either OR or a copyvio. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 11:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, I cannot find any information about Prishiboro in !Kung religion. My sources call the god of the !Kung either jjnwa-se or maybe Huwe although it's not very clear to me. I'd love to know the source of the Prishiboro mythology.--Nathan Holland 22:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The myths themselves should be in past tense, but if this is a living group of people, shouldn't it be e.g. "believe" and "practice" instead of "believed" and "practiced"? Crater Creator 05:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm sure many people, myself included, would be curious as to how the name of the tribe is pronounced. Perhaps a pronunciation key or something alike would be useful. Also, I believe that their native name isn't "!Kung" isn't it? Please include information about their original name and the origin of the 'curious' exclamation mark. Thanks 219.74.50.44 17:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The ! indicates a clicking sound. 129.21.40.218 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this request. Surely someone could put in a little sound file with the correct pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NStahl (talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge with Bushmen

Suggestion to merge !Kung people with Bushmen, which are known as the !Kung or San the same ethnic group. This group has had many names, originally called Bushmen by the Dutch, the term became derogatory by the British Colonialists and the San or !Kung were applied. However the term Bushmen has had a comeback taking precedence and this article is not as complete as the Bushmen -Kain Nihil 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that "Bushmen" is more or less a term used for the Khoe & San people in the Kalahari, who (originally) speak Khoisan languages. The ǃKung people, however, are merely one single subgroup of them. The Nama people, for example, are Bushmen, but not ǃKung. Thus I strongly oppose the merge. — N-true 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the merge makes sense as a sub category because as you said, the !Kung are a subdivision of the San which are bushmen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.49.178 (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For ANTH Environment & Society

I added to the existing Hunting Rituals section and created the Social Structure and Hierarchy section for my anthropology class; Environment & Society[[[User:Bda1991|Bda1991]] (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)]

Hello Bda1991, I have a couple suggestions for this article that could be taken into consideration. Under the category Social Structure and Hierarchy maybe the definition of "chiefdom" could be incorporated and also an elaboration of other roles in which the "logical heads" hold. Also under the Recent History the last sentence of the third paragraph states, "Millet is more difficult to process than traditional Joǀʼhoansi foods, and therefore women must spend more time preparing food for their household, leaving less time for employment outside the home". Maybe instead of this it could be replaced with the idea that the Indigenous population were exposed to the European social hierarchy and this could be why women were more restricted to the home. Take care! :) Rebecca(Labrador) (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment as to defining some terms (or putting links to their wikipedia pages) so there is a greater understanding of them. I also would try to find citations under the heaings 'Mythology', 'Use of kinship terms', and 'In popular culture'. Another change for aesthetic reasons would to have all the headings unified (e.g. all capital). Good job so far though! [[[User:Mkbertram|Mkbertram]] (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)]

Thanks for the feedback from the both of you! I'll try my best to make the changes you've suggested! [[[User:Bda1991|Bda1991]] (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)]

Recent History

As is evident from the section heading, this section appears to be a little biased and unreferenced. I copy edited for clarity and removed some of the worst of the assumptions, but the original writer seemed to have an unsupported affinity for:

1. disease
2. growing equality of the sexes due to white man's influence

While I could see at least some aspects of these two points being true (particularly with disease), I wouldn't think that they would be that clearly cause and effect, but someone who knows about the subject should clarify.Editfromwithout (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Q.: I recently read Richard B Lee's interesting case study "The Dobe !Kung" copyright 1984. Reflecting his general, all-encompassing interest in the culture (of the Dobe area !Kung people); his book spans broadly, covering various social aspects.

Among the subjects of his inquiry are murder and violence. Here I quote: Another general feature [me: of violence resulting in death] is that deadly fighting is almost exclusively a male occupation. All 25 of the killers in the 22 cases were male, as well as 19 of the 22 victims. Of the three female victims, only one was a principal in a conflict; the other two were unfortunate bystanders. This contrasts sharply with the high level (25 to 50 percent) of female homicide victims in most Western societies. It may reflect women's high status in !Kung society. Unquote.

Never mind the (seemingly growing) epidemic of rape and sexual violence perpetrated against females (especially as little ones; as well -ay- as male youth). Richard B. Lee doesn't draw that comparison, however, it is plainly there to be drawn as much as the contrast in homicides against women and children.

I want to know: what world of white folks/Westerners does demonstrate a greater level of general equality amongst men and women; [how does one even determine what a fair definition of equality is, to be applied universally?- us? !Kung? -however I will assume we equality is present when both sides of a binary division enjoy the same levels of: safety; freedom of movement, action and individual and group expression within the bounds of social acceptability; -importantly- to be equally valued by the community; and -very basic- to have equal chance of survival due to lack of hunger and illness, and the ease in providing for their children's safety, well-being, and pleasure] than that traditionally experienced among !Kung genders?

I want to know because I really am curious to learn more about the !Kung. Perhaps my question has two main bracts: 1. Are you looking at actual differences in equality between the genders in 2 separate cultures; with an eye two your own cultural bias, with critical awareness of how your perceptions inevitably sift through the lens of your own personal and cultural upbringing; or are you oblivious to how much 'equality' is something we tell ourselves that we have... when the hard data and personal experiences of members of western culture often tell otherwise... Basically what are the facts used to determine the inferior level of equality between the sexes, or the greater oppression of women or what have you?

And my second question is: what other resources, online or in print could I find to help me further my knowledge of the !Kung? I lucked out in finding the Richard B Lee book at a fundraising book sale for 50 cents, but otherwise have found nothing solid. Do respond, please. Apologies for the grammar. I know I mixed up a few tenses, apologies.

Gender roles etc

Hi. I am concerned about this extensive edit (and the next one) by an IP. It sounds like WP:OR, with the same source added here and there. I can't locate the source in Google books, but most of it sounds a bit like "parachute ethnography" and primary source by Nancy Bonvillain (page created by one of her students). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad Introduction

After having a look at the introduction, I can safely claim I have no idea what the !Kung people are like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radnompieceofgarbage (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd sentence about gender roles in introduction

'In !Kung society men and women live together in a non-exploitative manner'. This sentence strikes me as an odd one to have in the introduction. Is this unusual for the region? If so it would be better to write 'In contrast to X, in !Kung society..' If not then I'm not sure why it is in the introduction, as it suggest one would otherwise assume the opposite.

Reads Like Propaganda

Or perhaps satire. Either this isn't a real ethnic group, or someone is playing a cruel joke by couching ethnographic research in the most condescending way possible. The text drips of "isn't it amazing how unsavage these people are!" This is the noble savage trope on steroids.

Joeedh (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Joeedh: I think the lead section is especially bad (I haven't taken a look at the rest of the article in depth). "men and women live together in a non-exploitative manner, displaying a striking degree of equality between the sexes"? "Today, the great majority of ǃKung people live sedentary lives"? I think this might be a case of bad word choices (that are just non neutral-sounding, regardless of the editor's original intention). Some of the content might be easily improved just by removing some of these words/phrases, at least in the lead. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at an earlier version, the origin of these problems makes more sense - someone rewrote quoted anthropological observations as fact, and anthropology can have bias formed from the anthropologist's cultural background or opinions (even though it is technically a scientific field). The article seems to have had some non-neutral writing for years. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by WikiProject Anthropology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)