Talk:Pygmy peoples/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"The most closely studied group are the Mbuti of the Ituri Rainforest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which were the subject of the study The Forest People (1962) by Colin Turnbull."

sounds familiar - white man studies backward, almost inhuman black tribe. does "heart of darkness" come to mind? i know it doesn't explicitly say that, but doesn't it give that vibe? perspective should be changed.

I'm sorry, but white men _did_ study "backwards" people. That's not inaccurate. You can't possibly say that the African pygmies were more than or equally as advanced as the Europeans.

Please outline an *objective* definition of "advanced"? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Elsenrail (talk • contribs

) 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The words "backwards" and "advanced" are based on a narrow world view. It makes no sense to use them in a global forum such as Wikipedia which is meant to be inclusive and to include many perspectives. What does "advanced" mean? Advanced in terms of: Democracy? Literacy? Crime rates? Access to running water and electricity? Or maybe in terms of Environmental degradation? Capacity to love? Depression rates? Or maybe in terms of Family size? Happiness index? Self-sufficiency? The term "advanced" is about as meaningless as "developed" - and both have a kind of heartless, ignorant ring to them, even if unintended.--Mashedpotatoes1 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

the term 'pygmy' is outdated, insulting and erroneous by definition. the people so referred to are known as the San people. That term should only be used with an explanation of its racially biased origin from the era of European, western, colonization and aggresssion in that region of the world. I detect caucasoid racist arrogance reading some of the remarks. In more advanced studies the word tribe has been replaced with ethnic group Need new approach to writing about Africa.```` It is my bacground and I will submit corrections and comments, rewrites as I surveil contents.Kitani 13:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do my best to help with what I can. Tornasole 23:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term 'Pygmy' is considered insulting, however the word 'San' refers to a completely different group of people and is also considered derogatory. The San prefer to be called bushmen, and are from Southern Africa. African pygmies are from Central Africa. For more information, see the

article.

I detect caucasoid racist arrogance AHAHAHAHHAHAHA, it hasn't got anything to do with the race of these tribes, are you telling me that other Africans don't make derogatory remarks about "pygmies" due to their size Angryafghan 11:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as i'm aware, "Race" is determined by bone structure, and so assuming inferiority based on the size of these populations is racism. Elsenrail 14:31, 03 January 2007

haha.. If anything it would be the taller tribes eating the little people. lol

Cannibalism probably is virtually unheard of today in most parts of even the deeper parts of Africa. (Though it's still fun and romantic to think of tribes of head hunting cannibals existing today).. If such occurances do happen in modern times, they are usually of a rather rare probability.

Maybe this article should be split into pygmy (animals) and pygmy (humans). There seems plenty to say about both. --Fang Aili

I heard that Pygmies do not have depth perception or, if any, very poor depth perception. Can someone confirm this, please include source, and expand the article with this information? Apparently many people agreed on this matter but I haven't been able to find anything about it.

What sort of attention from an expert does this article need? Hyacinth 08:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There exists non-unique anthropological research which can help this article to convey with more depth the particular commonalities shared by "Pygmy" cultures around the globe. A compelling case can be made arguing that the "Pygmies" (a term I use in a pseudohistorical, rather than pejorative sense) are the direct cultural and biological ancestors of all modern humans. The educated inferences which attempt to draw these conclusions are also non-unique, though controversial. 24.34.46.169 09:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How should this article be expanded? Hyacinth 08:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe reasons why the Pygmies are so short should be discussed. I did a yahoo search and quickly found this website... http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/lifeways/diasporas/why.html Someone just has to use that information and source the article.

Whenever this article is expanded and there is more room, here is a link eto a portrait circa 1914 Image:NSRW Africa Pygmy.png --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

They are native to central Africa and also the location opposite from Central Africa.--Digitalseal 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Every equatorial region has "Pygmies" - or pygmoid fossils from relatively recent prehistory.24.34.46.169 09:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Except South America. Meateatingvegan 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"The term comes from the deutsch "Hitlerjugend"(meaning "fist sized"), which was a kind of dwarf in Greek mythology."

Sorry, but the german term "Hitlerjugend" does not mean "fist sized". And anyway I can't follow this connection between the Hitlerjugend, the term pygmie and Greek mythology. Please explain that to me...

I have moved the Pygmies of Greek myth to a separate page

. This old piece of folklore really needed to be disentangled from information on the actual African tribes.

Perhaps the general pygmy page should contain just definitions of various usages of the term (e.g. in ancient and medieval legends, C19th application to certain African tribes, usage of term in zoology, etc), and the information on African tribal groups concentrated under their correct ethnic names.

We should make it clear in the first paragraph that the term "Pygmy-American" should not be used in place of progressive expressions such as little people.

that "little people" link directs to a page about gnomes and folklore, looks like your attempt at being "progressive" backfired Angryafghan 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about the pygmies of the pacific island New Guinea in the states of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia? --217.232.72.199 13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pygmy blue whales are considered a subspecies of blue whale, among other pygmies of other animals, why not pygmy homo sapiens?—The preceding

) 12:34, 17 October 2006.

Not different Enough?

"Why aren't human pygmies considered a sub species of homo sapiens?" Not sure, but it might be because they just arent different enough from the average human. Its not like the pygmies they found on flores (Homo floresiensis), who had different bone structures and 'brain to body mass ration.'

Because they are not a new species

The people of smaller size that we're discussing are NOT a different species from humans. They can, and do (as I just heard an an NPR report, sorry about the lame cite) reproduce successfully with other humans in their areas. Their genes only differ in the SIZE issue, as ALL humans genes differ. They don't indicate an "other." —The preceding

) 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry

I meant a photo of its mouth/teeth. Thanks.

The "buffalo getting larger" theory

I have a comment on/regarding the "story" under the Experiments with pygmies section where it describes the inability of the pygmies to "read depth cues", isn't this a bit stupid explanation?? I mean, same as the buffalo was getting larger when the pygmy was taken closer to it, all other things (other pygmies, other animals that that particular pygmy have seen so far etc.) were obviously similarly getting larger.

Why if he simply became distressed and agitated because he was afraid of the animal when being so close to it??

regards Wayfarer-Talk | on December 6, 2006

Can anyone confirm this? 124.82.4.141 08:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true.

—The preceding

) 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I took out this paragraph because it's silly. I've never heard anyone suggest the skeleton is a Pygmy (there were no references); it's obviously not since the brain is much smaller and it has various skeletal differences. KarlM 06:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of any pygmies from South America? Before reading this article it was my belief that pygmies were actually from South America, as I have heard many times of pygmy tribes deep in the Amazon Rainforests. This would certainly be believable as many native peoples from the equatorial parts or South America are very short, and South Americans and Latinos in general tend to be short. TeePee-20.7 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Although there are South American peoples of short stature, they are not referred to as pygmies, at least not in anthropology.--Ezeu 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article currently reads:

The name "Negrito" comes from the Spanish or Portuguese "little Negro" and was given by early explorers who assumed the Andamanese they encountered were from Africa. This assumption was discarded when anthropologists noted that apart from dark skin and curly hair, they had little in common with any African population, including the African pygmies.

The thing is, negrito means, first and foremost in Spanish and Portuguese, "little black" - there really is no "negro" from the Iberian perspective. In Spanish people are regularly termed café ("coffee-colored"), moreno ("brown-colored"), etc., which indicates a color, not a race or origin. (To reiterate: color is not race. Conflating color and race is a tempting simplification that in the USA has become codified, and that shows here.) The point is, if Spanish and Portuguese people see people who are relatively smaller and darker and call them negritos ("little blacks"), that does not indicate an assumption of origin in Africa. (If it were africanitos, then the assumption would be clear.) An assumption that does not exist cannot be discarded. If there is evidence that this assumption existed, then put it in the article, but explaining it with the bad translation "little negro" is really bad original research. Adam Mathias 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just edit the thing if you believe it is incorrect. --Ezeu 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)