Talk:San religion

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South Africa: PSP SA Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Wikipedia Primary School project. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is designed to address aspects of Khoikhoi and San religion. If you have an issue with the content, please try to resolve it in this page, rather than starting a new one. There used to be something like three pages addressing Cagn/Kaang/Kaagn under different names, and I'd like to avoid such proliferation in the future. Thanks Flutterman (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khoe ('Khoi') and San religion are entirely different. The cultures and languages are quite separate. Both deserve their own pages. I'm not an expert on Khoe culture, but I do know that the San myth here is so reductive as to be useless and uses an orthography that hasn't been employed since the 1800s. I'd love to edit this, but can I recommend that this page be flagged for a comprehensive edit / rewrite and split? It's not really happening. DN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.23.136 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

____________________

Hello hello. I've just made a reversion on the page of 'Khoisan religion' and I'm explaining here why.

It's certainly true that there is no such thing as 'Khoisan' religion since the Khoi (more accurately Khoe) and the San are two distinct people with entirely different systems of belief and ritual.

They do not share any mythological figures or indeed any myths.

The only thing they have in common is that they are both indigenous Southern African peoples. They are related genetically and in the phonology of their languages. And that, really, is it: one are (or were) hunter gatherers, the other are (or were) cattle herders.

If there should be a page on 'Khoisan religion' it is crucial that the distinction should be made. We can have a page on 'Khoisan religion' if it refers to "the religion of Southern African indigenes". But without the distinction that Khoi and San religions are entirely different, the page is basically useless since there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as Khoisan religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.23.136 (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC) ____________________[reply]

I agree, I made some minor edits to place the fact that the Khoisan religion doesn't exist a little further up in the lead paragraph to make it more clear for the reader. However, I was a little curious as to why there is a page for something of this nature that does not exist.Editfromwithout (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to moving any page, especially a controversial edit please get agreement first. I see not evidence of any agreement to move Saan to a offensive term. Esp when there is a strong ongoing debate about renaming bushmen page.--Inayity (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the debate to move the other page. AFAIK "Bushman" is the preferred term, not an offensive one. — kwami (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. There isn't any coherent debate there. The last comment was one of yours dated three months ago. The two article should obviously use the same term. I was wrong to use "Saan" for this article. If the other article is moved to San/Saan, then this one should be moved to match. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not really been involved but I can tell you from a local perspective "Bushman" is not the preferred term. I am more familiar with "San" than "Saan", but I would have to research it to say which is better. Here is one source which addresses what they want to be called. HelenOnline 08:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that "San" is preferred in SA, but "Bushman" in Namibia. "Saan" is an attempt to be more accurate, like "Khoe" for "Khoi", but I don't see how that's particularly relevant. I prefer "San" myself, but that may just be because it doesn't mean anything to me, whereas "Bushman" is meaningful in English, and sounds like it should be pejorative. How it actually compares to "San" I don't know. — kwami (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us deal with things as they stand. The page should NOT be moved, please do us a favor and revert it to the original stable standing until we all agree on what is next. We have rules on Wikipedia and the rules come first. You cannot just move a page (for any reason) if no one else agrees! It is how things are negotiated. Now I am not 4000 miles away from this issue and Right here in SA I can report that the term is very offensive on the ground. But I am saying that to add to what most already say. In the articles, in the books Asantepure progressive logic says how can you call a people Bush men! For one it is sexist. --Inayity (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa and Namibia are not worlds apart. It makes no sense that something like that changes when one takes one step over the border. HelenOnline 08:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are saying changes when you cross into SA?--Inayity (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to kwami who suggested different terms might be preferred in SA and Namibia (hence fewer indents). HelenOnline 12:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Politics change when govt changes. All sorts of things change when you step across the border from the US to Canada, including which terms are considered pejorative. "Eskimo", for example, is considered pejorative in Canada and has been almost entirely replaced by "Inuit", yet in Alaska it continues to be used and "Inuit" is not considered acceptable (since most of the Eskimo in Alaska are not Inuit). I have no idea if SA and Namibia or Bots differ in this regard, but I have read that there are groups that object to both terms, and it's possible that their influence differs in different countries. There is hardly any Khoikhoi presence in SA, so perhaps the San there don't care whether "Saan" is pejorative in Khoekhoegowab, but there is a strong Khoikhoi presence in Namibia, so the Khoikhoi POV may be more relevant there. — kwami (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you entirely. My comment stems from the fact that Namibia relies quite heavily on South Africa in many respects as they simply do not have the infrastructure South Africa does, e.g. they copy South African laws quite blindly. Regardless, I am collecting some more reliable sources at Bushmen#Further_reading so we can make a more informed opinion. Based on a tentative review yesterday, the main article needs a lot of work. HelenOnline 07:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find the word "Bushman" rather distasteful, but that could simply be because I don't speak Khoekhoegowab and so can't really compare. This may be a case where neither COMMONNAME nor a desire to avoid pejoratives will give an easy answer. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "San people" but I think it best to do my homework before committing myself. I think part of the reason this situation hasn't been resolved yet is that people are relying on their personal impressions and feelings rather than checking what reliable sources say. If a move is being contemplated, we need to be able to motivate it better. HelenOnline 08:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look you will see the real reason it has not been moved is there are enough supporters but no one does the final push. The ref are there, that is not the issue, research shows to move the page. But we are going through these cycles. And when editors just do as they please and change names violating wikipedia policy it just really kills the spirit of contribution. As a result entire sections suffer. --Inayity (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably consolidate this discussion at Talk:Bushmen; if there's not enough participation for one article, there's not going to be enough for two. Also, if we move to San, there's the question of whether Bushmen should be a rd or a dab. Australia's been brought up, but the term's been used in other countries as well. — kwami (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I have all my ducks in a row (almost there), I will formally request a WP:RM/CM of Bushmen to San people unless someone else beats me to it. The evidence is pretty compelling. HelenOnline 10:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to raise a point about /Kwammanga-a who has been described here as a "strange carnivore". However, all the literature I've read on this god describe him as a rainbow. It seems it was his role to be a proper role model and was a being of honor and grace, likely to contrast /Kagn's role as irredeemable trickster and cautionary tale. You can see this in Wilhelm Bleek's and Lucy Lloyd's collected tales of the |Xam. There may have been some confusion here between /Kwammanga-a the noble rainbow lord and //Kwuai-Hem the Eternal Hunger or Devourer, usually described as a forest fire who was the actual father of Porcupine Girl. /Kagn merely adopted her when she ran away from her monstrous true father. Of course this may just be the cosmology of the |Xam and not the San as a whole. Nefylym (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is correct that the Khoi and San are two different people and their religious traditions are distinct, they are also interrelated and share a few key characteristics (which is only to be expected due to their close proximity). For example, both religions are highly dualistic and employ ritual dances.

I agree with splitting the pages, but the current page is not San religion, its a mixed mess of aspects from both religious traditions. For example, someone commented before "They do not share any mythological figures or indeed any myths", meanwhile the page goes on to list both Cagn and Tsui'goab as San figures. Cagn is the supreme deity figure of the San, Tsui'goab is the supreme deity figure of the Khoi. Heitsi-Eibib and Gaunab are also deities more often associated with the Khoi than the San peoples.

Essentially, you guys renamed to page but then did absolutely nothing to properly split the information.173.56.79.75 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to separate incoherent material without doing the research all over again, which I don't have the time for. But you're welcome to do it, since you appear to be familiar with the material. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cagn is the supreme deity figure of the San". Nonsense. The San aren't a people. This is like saying Jesus and Buddha are the creator gods of the Eurasian religion. I removed the Khoekhoe figures, which leaves us with Cagn & Coti and !Xu. There are lots of sources out there describing the religion and mythology of the !Kung, !Xoon, G|ui, Naro, etc., if anyone cared to create an actual article on San mythology/religion. — kwami (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"!Xu" is just the Khoikhoi word for "Lord" in Bible translations. "Cagn" and "Coti" are corruptions of |Xam names, a demi-urge/trickster and his wife. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]